Talk:Atlanta Braves/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Records

Should the records be a seperate page? CJC47 04:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about a separate page, but at least a table would be nice.--Attitude2000 21:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Braves' Ownership

I heard that the Braves got a new owner. Or partial stake owner. Is this true? --CanesOL79 03:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Not yet. They MIGHT be getting a new owner because they could be up for sale. -- 06:05pm, 19 December 2005

-Right now they (along with Turner South) are up for sale by Time Warner, but nobody has bought them yet, but they will definitely be getting a new owner in the near future. --Ratwar 5:16 9 March 2006

Never Losing? "team"

"The Braves were somewhat mediocre as the 1960s began, but fattened up on the expansion New York Mets and Houston Colt .45s. To this day, they are the only major league team who played more than one season and never had a losing record." They have had losing records in Boston and Atlanta, do you mean that they never had a losing record in Milwaukee?

Look closely and you will find other inconsistencies grounded in the city & nickname variety for this club --popularly, team. See also Boston Red Stockings, disambiguation in the making. (I moved the article from Category:1876 establishments to 1871, reducing the number by one.) --P64 00:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Logo

It could use a current Braves logo.

Uniform

The uniform needs to be updated... One of the Braves uniforms (not sure which) is a bright red color now. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 15:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Done Let me know what you thinkCJC47 03:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just so you know, the red one is their Sunday home uniform. LiveFyre 23:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So far this year the Braves have worn their all blue cap with their standard grey uniform, this should be noted. I do not know if they have worn their all blue cap for a home game yet. - Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.143.12 (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

club history in Boston

There is too much Boston club history here. For a few major league clubs including this one --probably a number growing over time as more 'pedia history gets written-- there should probably be something like a main article on the club ("Atlanta Braves") with balanced history only a few screens long, plus articles such as "Atlanta NL history" and "Boston NL history" or even "Boston (NA, NL) history" as needed.

Titles of such "Main" articles may be technical rather than fan-friendly (are all these nicknames really fan friendly?) because traffic will not depend on intuitive searching but on internal links. A tag in the more balanced much shorter history section of "Atlanta Braves" would generate essentially the following. --P64 03:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

 I propose to have "The Boston Braves History" as a sperate article. This will prevent confusion when being redirected to the Atantla Braves article.

Main article: Boston (NA, NL) history

I propose to have "The Boston Braves History" as a sperate article. This will prevent confusion when being redirected to the Atantla Braves article.

• It is a single franchise across multiple cities. Sears is still Sears, whether it's in Chicago or Schaumburg. Aside from that, the other sports teams with multiple cities are in single articles. It is perhaps interesting to note, however, that even now, the Braves spent much more time in Boston (82 years) than in Milwaukee and Atlanta combined (56, including the coming season). Speaking of which, what do you do about Milwaukee? A third article? I don't think so. It's clear from the article what the club's history is; there should be no confusion. Wahkeenah 01:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

TBS advantage?

Is there any truth to the idea that the Braves were such a force for 15 years because TBS broadcasted many of it games nationally? -Amit

last i checked tv appearances dont help make a team do good, but i do think TBS was named after the braves (the braves station)

Nope, TBS is the Turner Broadcasting System LiveFyre 23:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

When the Braves were purchased by Ted Turner their games were carried locally on WSB, Channel 2, in Atlanta. Ted Turner moved the Braves to WTCG and in 1981 WTCG changed their call-letters to WTBS to reflect that it was the flagship of the Turner Broadcasting System. Interestingly, if you go back and look there was a huge uproar when the games were moved from WSB channel 2 to WTCG Channel 17 because at that time not all televisions were capable of receiving UHF signals. The WTCG signal was also very weak.208.45.230.190 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)ReverieHikes 17:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Current Team Roster

1. 29 RHP John Smoltz is missing from the 40-man roster on this page. Could someone who knows how please add him in?

Tamyrlin 22:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

done --68.158.42.157 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Infante was traded by the Tigers to the Cubs who traded him and Will Ohman to the Braves. He didn't come in the JJ trade, he didn't pass go nor collect 200 dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.136.21 (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Division championships

Recently, at least two anon IPs have "14 straight division championships" to "11" in several places in the text. It is well known that the Braves have won 14 consecutive division titles, 3 in the NL West, and 11 in the NL East. This is over a 15-year period due to the strike year in which no championships were awarded.

If you disagree with this interpretation of events, you are welcome to discuss them here. However, any further changes made to this info in the text without having achieved a consensus first will be treated as "disruptive edits" (vandalism). Thanks for your co-operation. - BillCJ 23:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well. another anon IP has struck again, making the same changes. If someone wishes to post brief material stating that some count the 1994 strike year as a break in the Braves' consecutive division wins record, that would acceptable, provided it is from a credible, verifiable source (meaning a sports site/magazine article, a baseball writer's book, etc.; NOT a blog, editorial or opinion piece). Other than that, please stop making these changes. Thanks. - BillCJ 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Content disputes are not vandalism. Describing them as such is improper. The essential disagreement here is over whether something can be described as 'consecutive' when there was a one year gap. Perhaps unambiguous wording like, 'have won division championships in each of the last 14 seasons that they were awarded'. --CBD 23:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Describing the changes being made as a "content dispute" is also improper, as the various IP users have refused to enter duscussion on the issue at any point. I have no problem discussing this issue, but constant reverting without discussion is disruptive, and is usually treated as vandalism. The last IP address has been blocked by an admin for being disruptive. - BillCJ 04:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

While it is true the Braves did not win in 14 consecutive years, they did win 14 consecutive championships. That is all the text stated. The Atlanta Braves organization treats the championships as consecutive, and MLB may also. If we need to quote sources supporting this, fine. Again, I have no problem quoting a verifiable source which presents the alternate view, but the anon user would not even leave in any qualifing statements regarding the strike year at all. THe user certainly was not editing in good faith. - BillCJ 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BillCJ here. I think the wording is fair in that there in the last 14 consecutive opportunities there have been to win a division championship, the Braves have won all 14. As a compromise, I would suggest adding an "asterisk" note about the 94 strike year. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you help on this. I've been considering something similar to an asterisk, possibly a reference note which shows up in the References section, that we could place each time the consecutive wins is mentioned. The note would tell about the strike year, and that some don't consider the wins consecutive because of it.

I'd like to find a definitve MLB statement on the issue of whether or not they consider the 14 wins to be consecutive . Whatever way they rule, I am for putting that in the article, whether it "goes my way" or not. We could then put the competing view in the reference note; would be good to have a source on this too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BillCJ (talk • contribs).

• A quick Google survey of "mlb" and "division titles" indicates mlb.com considers the Braves to have won 14 consecutive. That stands to reason, as there was no title to be had in 1994. I think the recent switches to the contrary were posted by someone who either resents the Braves or doesn't understand. Wahkeenah 10:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, all fourteen championships were consecutive because at no point in that span did another team hold the title of division champion. For what it's worth, Baseball Reference doesn't credit the Expos with winning the division that year. The Nationals' official website credits the Expos with having the best record in baseball, but not with winning the division crown. [1] The Braves' official site credits them with fourteen consecutive division championships. [2] The anon's edits may be in good faith, but they're not correct. --Djrobgordon 18:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) (Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball by - BillCJ 19:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Response

I sent an e-mail to the user who was changing the text to '11 consecutive' and received a response asking about talk page procedures and indicating that they would like to add the following response;

The 1994 season was played. All the stats from that season counted to the player totals. The players all got credit for a full season played. Yet, according to MLB, no team won the division that year. Because of this, any streak in progress was halted as they did not win in 1994. The streak began anew in 1995. This would be very similar to a consecutive game hitting streak coming to an end after a rain shortened 6 inning game. The game was cut short, but the streak comes to an end even though there were still three more innings to play. It was still an official game and all player stats count. 1994 was still an official season and all stats counted.

I have no personal bias against the Braves. I honestly don't care one way or the other about them. I just saw a mistake while cruising around the site and saw that I could correct it. 11 consecutive division titles is a HUGE accomplishment. But I have yet to find any official comment from MLB regarding the streak. I can only guess a ruling will not be official until some other team approaches 11 consecutive wins. The Yankees might do it. They have won 9.

I sent a return note explaining some basics of Wikipedia talk page discussion. --CBD 00:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That user is applying his own personal research and personal opinion, contrary to the way MLB, the Braves, and the press in general see it. It has to be set back to 14. His analogy with the hitting streak is flawed. In the rain-shortened legal game described, if the batter in question had no official at-bats, i.e. if he had been walked every time, then the game would be ignored in the streak. That would be the case for a full 9-inning game also, obviously. It's as if the game didn't happen, as far as the streak is concerned. But his batting stats (0-for-0, with whatever-number-of-walks) still count, it's just that the game is not part of the streak. Wahkeenah 07:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see where a personal opinion comes into play here. I have physically counted back the number of consecutive division titles they have won. And it comes up as 11. From 1995 through 2005. The consecutive number must be 11. At the very least, call it 14 of the last 15. As that is factually accurate. The analogy to the rain shortened game is not flawed. Assuming the player had grounded out 3 times prior to the rain dealy that became a game ending event, the streak would have ended as he had his three at bats. The Braves streak ended because MLB determined that all the games counted and the season be known as an official season. The fact that MLB made the unusual determination that no division title be awarded only supports this. An offical season was played where the Braves did not win. The fact that nobody won is inmaterial. For a winning streak to continue, something had to be won durring a recognized event. The streak could have only continued if MLB decided to annul the 1994 season. Not cuunt the stats. Give no credit to players for time played. But MLB did not do that. The games counted. The season counted. The streak had to end. PS: Apologies if I am not following protocals. I am simply not familiar with them. I am happy to follow all standards. I just need to be made aware of them.

• The MLB consensus is 14, because there was no title to be awarded in 1994. To use your rainout analogy, think of the situation where a game is rained out and it's tied. The game does not count in the standings, but all the stats do. You might argue the teams weren't tied in the standings. But the season was never finished, so their relative positions in the standings means nothing except as an interesting bit of trivia. Wahkeenah 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If the Braves won 14 divison championships out of 15 between 1991 and 2005, who was awarded the 15th?? You are using MLB's rules to prove that the MLB's own rules are wrong. If MLB considers the 14-win streak to be consecutive, you can't use game statistic rules to proves it's wrong. You may disagree with MLB's decision not to award division winners in 1994, but the fact is that is what happened. We also aren't saying that the Braves finished first for 15 consecutive years, because they obviously did not. The point is, in a 15-year period, the Braves won all the championships that were awarded.

I have no problem presenting both views in the text. But I certainly have a problem presenting your view as the only correct one, when both the Braves organization and MLB appear to support the 14-streak being consecutive. ALso, 1994 was a stike-shortend season, and there is no reason to remove all references to that FACT from the text, especially in the Season Records chart, which was done on several occasions. - BillCJ 19:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You write that the MLB consensus is 14. But I have found no evidence of that. It is mentioned on the Braves website, but that very same site, in the Braves history section, it shows that the streak is indeed 11. Personally, I have found no consensus from MLB themselves on the matter. The tie game ananlogy is a good one, but the game would indeed be picked up at the time of dealay, IF the game would make a difference in the outcome of the season. If you are asking who won the year the Braves didn't durring that 14 out of 15 run, the answer is no one. But that does not mean the streak remains intact. There was indeed a division title in play for the 1994 season. And after the season was cut short, MLB made a decision. They could have just as easilly declared the teams in first place as division champions. But they didn't do that. Wether or not I personally agree or disagree with the decision doesn't matter. What matters is what MLB declared. But to say that the teams in 1994 were not playing for anything is dead wrong. I have no problem saying that some consider the streak to be consecutive, if you as editors feel you must to be fair. But it is kind of like saying that some still consider the Earth to be flat in an entry about this planet. (and I don't know if that disclaimer appears) But I do feel that the wording for the streak must not infer that it was 14 consecutive seasons. You could claim they won 3 in the western division. Then came the strike year, and then won 11 in the east. With no mention of anything consecutive between the two, as that would give the invalid impression that the streak remained intact when the team did not win anything durring an offical season played.

I have never advocated saying 14 consecutive seasons, just 14 consecutive titles in a 15-year period. - BillCJ 18:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. They had 14 consecutive titles, covering all the years in which there was a title to be won. The 1994 season had no winner. However, the other editor points out that there seems to be some inconsistency or lack of information from the official sources. That's what needs to be investigated. Our opinion on the matter does not count. Wahkeenah 19:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree on that also. Whatever the official sources say, that should get precedence in the article. If the official sources say the 14 title-streak is consecutive, then we say that, and present the alternate view. If the official sources do not accept the streak as consecutive, then we state that as official, and mention that some consider the streak consecutive in a footnote. But if there is no official ruling on the strike, or sources don't agree, (these appear to be the case as of now) then we present both views equally.

To sum this all up: The Braves did win 11 consecutive NL East division titles. They did win 3 NL West division titles. These are undisputed facts. THe hard part is what to do with the strike year in between the two. SOme look at it as a break in the streak, while others consider it consecutive because no titles were awarded in the strike year. Did the Braves have 14 consecutive first place finishes? Absoulutely not! But the strike year is a unique situation (hopefully it won't happen agian), and this makes the division title streak unigue. If another team goes on to win 14 straight division titles in 14 seasons, then that record would stand by itself. But it doesn't change the uniqueness of the Braves 14-title streak either, and this deserves mention in the article. - BillCJ 19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Junked the WSB bias

Also, longtime radio flagship station 750 WSB was junked after the 2004 season in favor of WGST 640AM and a lucrative financial commitment from WGST's owner, Clear Channel Communications. Braves games are no longer heard across 38 states and Canada at night on the WSB signal, as it once was.

I have junked the above paragraph in favor of a more neutral, if less-informative statement. First, there were no sources mentioned at all in the paragraph. Second, it implies that WSB has always been the flagship station, which is certainly false. WGST was the flagship for several years in the 1990s (before the ClearChannel purchase), and there may have been other stations before that. Third, it implies there is something wrong with lucrative contracts, especially if people in Canada can't hear the broadcast. While it is sad if fans cna't hear the broadcasts for free as they used to, again, this has happened before when WGST was the flagship, and as such is not uniqie to the current contract. Fourth, the term "junked" is hardly encyclopedic, and certainly reveals the editor's bias. - BillCJ 02:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC) If you state that the braves consecutive title streak is broken in 94 I guess you should take away cal ripken's incredible streak. who every says that the Braves streak is only 11 is high on pot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.106.19 (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Hat

In the picture of the uniforms it doesn't show that the braves also use an alternate Hat Logo with the red uniforms. A picture of the alternate hat logo can be seen in this picture: http://atlanta.braves.mlb.com/images/2007/04/08/GUoJ2OgG.jpg Kobain 00:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

References

The article has 6 inline citations. I am converting them to ref tags. - BillCJ 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Three of the links were dead or irrelevant. THe other three have been ref-tagged. - BillCJ 00:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oldest continous playing team

The article states that "The original Red Stockings team can lay claim to being the oldest continuously playing team in all of professional sports; the only other team that has been organized for as long ..... "

Is this correct? I believe Notts County in England was formed in 1860? Or is this because of the war? But it also says "organized".

Rika

At a glance, I would say it means professional sports in the US. Would need to find the original source for this tho, but there isn't a source! But the text is "technically" correct, as Notts County would be the oldest team in professional "sport", while the Red Stockings are the oldest in professional "sportS" :) - BillCJ 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Notts County FC was not esatblished as a *professional* team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.86.32 (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rivals

To the anon IPs from the New York area who keep deciding who the Braves rivals are: Please stop making changes to things you know nothing about. To Braves fans, the Mets are a mere nusance, our real rivals are the Marlins and the Yankees. - BillCJ 00:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nickname

The Atlanta Braves have a legitimate nickname used by the media and the fans. Why on earth to the people here keep resisting mention of it? AKA's are always used in the leads of articles, and in the realm of baseball, that means nicknames. These have become a prominant part of the team articles, being mentioned in the leads and even the infoboxes. In fact, it is very likely to become a part of the infobox itself. The team's nickname (or nicknames if there are others in use) should not be hidden from view. Why? Silent Wind of Doom 23:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

When it becomes part of the infobox, then that is the appropriate place to list it. It just does not fit well under the main name. - BillCJ 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think placing that particular nickname in the lead is more a case of undue weight. As a native Atlantan and Braves fan since the Biff Pocoroba/Jerry Royster/Willie Montañez days, my experience is that the "Bravos" nickname is used infrequently and doesn't really belong in the lead as an alterntive to their official name. It's a valid nickname - just not necessarily a popular one, but that's just my opinion of course. My experience is that folks usually just call them the Braves - one-syllable and rolls off the toungue. Now if you want to talk about favorites adjectives to precede their name, that's another story. Enjoy. --Roswell native 23:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Well-stated too. - BillCJ 00:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Milwaukee Braves

Umm... it seems that someone has taken something out of the page and it was never caught, or something slipped between the cracks. The entire period of the Braves when they were in Milwaukee is missing. There's just a big gap between Boston and Atlanta. - Silent Wind of Doom 04:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It was part of that string of vandalism by User:168.169.96.247. There were two vandalous edits close together, and the editor must have reverted the first edit with the Undo feature, but missed the second edit. I've reverted it, so hopefully thats all of them. - BillCJ 05:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The article says the Milwaukee period is known for Hank's breaking the career HR record. While Hank did hit some in Milwaukee, the record was set in 1974, long after the move to Atlanta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.86.32 (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No commentary

I removed the following commentary from the page:

Oddly, the Atlanta Braves are the only team that both consistently plays excellent baseball and is consistently snubbed, ridiculed, overlooked, or lambasted by the national sports media. It seems the only media voices who respect and admire the Atlanta Braves are the broadcasters who call the games. Other media outlets and personalities, notably ESPN and Tim McCarver respectively, despise the Braves and its players, no matter who is on the roster for any given year. Why this is the case remains a mystery....

Although I happen to agree with theassesment, it has no place on the article page without some verifiable sources, and a valid reason for it's inclusion or notability. And as talk pages are for discussing the articles, no the subject of the articles, I can't add that such attitudes might have a lot to do with the fact that Atlanta is in the South, even though it's a very cosmopolitn city, the Braves have many "rural" fans, many of whom are gun toting, gay-bashing Bible-thumpers. I also cannot add that some resentment of the Braves may stem from the fact that they moved from Milwaukie, not a southercity, and that the move allowed Bud Selig to purchase the Seattl Pilots and move them to that city as the Brewers, setting in motion Selig's eventual becoming commisioner. But even if I were to mention thes3e things, they would just be speculation on my part, since I'm only a rural Braves fan. - BillCJ 19:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Established / Based In

Looking at other MLB teams that have moved in the modern era (e.g. Giants, Dodgers, A's, Rangers), they have a franchise established year, and also the year in which they moved to their current city. Why is the Braves page different? In it's current state, doesn't it read as if the ATLANTA Braves were established in 1871? --63.215.27.57 22:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Steve

• Fixed. Baseball Bugs 00:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Season details

In line with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/MLB team season articles format page, I have moved the deatils of the 2007 season to the 2007 Atlanta Braves season article. Please try limit the section on the main page to brief summaries only. Many details added to this section since the begionning of the season were later removed. It might be easier to retreive that info from the history to add to the season page, rather than have to research it all over again. The entire off-season section is also copied on the season page, so feel free to cut it back on the main page. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think each season should have that much text. 2005, 2006, and 2007 have around three paragraphs each, and its unbalanced and if every season had that much text, the page would be even more ridiculously longer than it is right now. I'm not quite sure what you were arguing about, but both of you have broken the 3RR when both of you are wrong.++aviper2k7++ 07:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the seasons are unbalanced. The 2007 season was even more unbalanced before I cut it back today. I don't understnad how you can condemn me for 3RR, and then say the sections are too long, when I was trying to cut them back! I think I explained pretty clear above what I was doing, yet you seem to think it's not enough! Go figure! It's easy to critize when you don't know what's going on, s you admitted. Trying finding out first, maybe you'll actually be of some use here. But as you point out, I can't cut back any more without violating 3RR even more. So instead, the sections will stay long. Again, go figure! - BillCJ 08:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You still should not revert three times in a day. I agree with your intentions and I know what's going on. But the 2007 season should barely be mentioned unless they make the playoffs for a team that began in 1871.++aviper2k7++ 04:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You are free to cut the section back to a bare minimum, as the entire section is now also on the season page. I wasn't sure what to cut back or leave, so I just left the first section in, and then didn't want to cut it back further for fear of escalating the revert conflict. Ksy has called a truce, so we are OK with where things stand on the issue. - BillCJ 05:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Chief Knockahoma

I have removed the Chief Knockahoma section, as it is FAR too much info on a minor character in its own section. I'd suggest one small sentence in 1980s sectionon this page. I'd also suggest creating a new article on Braves symbols and mascots over the years, with balanced coverage using verifible sources. I'd like to put a whole section in on Ken Hrbuk's cheating by pulling Ron Gant's foot off the base in the 1991 World Series, as that is a disgrace and travesty to anyone interested in fair play and following the rules of the game. However, it's also a minor incident. - BillCJ 18:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Team origins

Per [3]:

On January 20, 1871, the Boston Red Stockings were incorporated by Ivers Whitney Adams with $15,000 and the help of Harry Wright, the "Father of Professional Baseball," who had founded and managed America's first truly professional baseball team, the Cincinnati Red Stockings. Two months later, the Red Stockings became one of nine charter members of the National Association of Professional Baseball Players and the forerunner of the National League.

1871 is usually recognized as the start of the franchese that became the Braves. In 1876, they began play in the National League. THey had connections to the original Cincinnati Reds organization, that's well-established, but this is not considered in anyway a franchise move. - BillCJ 04:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ is correct. Especially considering the fact that so many other sources pull from wikipedia for facts, we should not incorrectly state that the franchise started in Cincinnati. Giles22 12:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The core of the Cincinnati Red Stockings regrouped in Boston. The Braves can lay claim to the Red Stockings as their ancestor... but it was apparently not a true franchise shift in 1871, the way it was in 1953 and 1966. Baseball Bugs 17:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And on a related note, shouldn't the four National Association pennants that the team won in Boston since 1871 be included in the infobox at the top of the page? The infobox already shows the team as being established that year, and the consensus among baseball historians is that the National Association was a legitimate major league (even though MLB doesn't share that opinion.) Huphelmeyer 21:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem having an "NA Pennants: 1872,1873,1874,1875" section in the infobox. Feel free to add it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

Merge the Boston Red Stockings into Atlanta Braves. The Red Stockings were the same team as the Boston Braves -- Cmjc80 18:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That leaves the other two early "Reds" with no page of their own, but unless there is much to say about them (which there currently isn't), then a reference to the PL, AA and UA pages should cover it. The current Red Stockings article also fails to make the correct connection with the Cincinnati Red Stockings which would properly explain why they adopted that name, presenting it as if the Cincinnati and Boston teams were the same team, which is not technically correct. Rather than deleting the page, make it a disambiguation page to point to the Atlanta Braves; the PL, AA and UA pages; and the Boston Red Sox, with the caveat that although the Red Sox name was derived from "Red Stockings" and from their cross-tracks rivals' temporary dropping of red trim, they weren't actually called by the longer version of the term. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Boston Red Stockings is really a glorified DAB page. Sources could be added, or it could be made a full DAB page. There's not anything there relevant to the Boston/Atlanta Braves franchise that isn't already covered here. Another option is to limit the Atlanta Braves history to the 1876 NL team (which is where the official Braves history timeline on MLB.com begins), and cover the 1871 NA team more fully at Boston Red Stockings. - BillCJ 19:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be a DAB page. And I was wrong, there is an article about the PL-AA club under Boston Reds. However, that was a separate club and worthy of its own page. The Boston Red Stockings of 1871 are today's Braves, in a continuum already discussed at length in the Braves article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And the picture could be moved to the Braves page. It's from 1873, so the deletionists can't touch it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a whack at it. If it's not satisfactory, whack it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, the DAB page looks good to me. - BillCJ 19:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Atlanta Braves/CommentsBB, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs references to be considered for B-class - Mattingly23 23:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)